christianstrategies wrote:1. According to darwinism, men changed of specie every 30.000 generations, but mutant microbes contradict that. There's one bacteria that "seemed to change of specie", according to "conventional scientifical criteria", but all other mutant microbes didn't. And they should, because they suffer important mutations, like resistance to antibiotica. Thus, it can not be generalized, and humans have a mutation rate per generation a lot slower than mutant microbes: for men, taking to comparison the microbes, it only would be possible an hipothetical change of specie after, I would say, 100.000 even 300.000 generations = 2.000.000 to 7.000.000 years for only one change of specie! E.g. Homo Neandertal to modern man...and microbes show it: it was a very particular case and not the general case... it contradicts completely generalizations in evolutionism and evolution dates... conclusion: it was the exception and not the rule and with bigger living beings, the mutation rate decreases, which makes its viability practically impossible...

2. It is possible for men to change of specie quickly, like the mule... please refer to my comment of page 19 "Jesus explains the hominids"

Answer for this is already over here

sachin wrote:Yes some of my grand relatives had such mutations but they got deselected by nature and obvious human behavior.How? Just think what will happen to the polydactyly genes in a person if he doesn't get married just because of his weirdness which has no advantage.

But if mutation provides one the extra intelligence or physical strength the person has high chances to get selected in nature and transfers genes to next generation. Now this type of speciation can not be realized.

Human body is at such level of perfection according to human's need that further mutations like complete lifelong baldness and 4 finger in hand will develop and give rise to new species (May be a species). But ofcourse it will take time, as today say if your progeny has dominant gene mutation (not Polygenic inheritance) for 4 fingers in hand it may get transferred to next generation only if "He gets chance to marry, though he is weird".

1. If it would be Bill Gates, Obama or the King of Saudi Arabia, with 4 fingers in one hand, I'm sure he would be able to get marry... not really an excuse... natural selection by people takes specially into account an important factor: "money"...

2. How many species of bacteria were found able to change of specie? Only one! And how many species of microbes exist all over the world? Millions, I assume... And that change of specie was not from a bacteria into a fungi (what I really call change of specie, for me what happened was simply a mutation phenomena, but it is not me who defines the specie's criteria...). And we have the powerful Aids virus to contradict permanently it...

3. In order to proof continuous evolutionism, all changes of specie triggered by mutations have to be proofed, sorry... is far from being the case. It is not because one cause works, that the whole set follows that rule...

christian: you have serious misunderstanding of evolution. First, human does not change every 30 000 generations. Even if it did, that doesn't mean anything about any other species. Every species mutates and changes with other speed. Consider some "living fossils", which didn't change for millions of years, while other species change very often.

AstraSequi wrote:What specific experiment or experiments would convince you? That's what I mean when I ask for standards of evidence.

1) To make evolve in a lab (e.g. a ground completely desinfected of life), spontaneously a simple form of life: it can be even used a completely desinfected lake, with complete absence of life and a lot of electrical storms, to try to create the first form of life... this event should be repeatable in order to give coherence to (continuous) evolutionism...

...Again, you can't "make" something happen "spontaneously." If something happens "spontaneously," then it happened without external cause. The word "make" implies that we are the external cause.

That is, it is not logically possible to meet the requirement. We cannot be the cause of something that happens with no cause.

2) to make evolve in a lab an australopythecus into a modern man, spontaneously, hasardously: OK, this is impossible to do, "it takes too much time": so, it is completely non proofed and coherency with reality can not be tested...

Even if Australopithecus still existed, I think such an attempt would be unethical..."Cannot be tested" is not equivalent with "false" (or "true," for that matter).

...dates are completely wrong. Maybe there's a difference of a few days in time, that's all (man was created in the 6th day, and microbes were created a few days before)

I think you need to provide verifiable evidence for this...I don't really see any in the reference that you gave.

You you have problems, you "disinfect" the fertile ground, and there's no bacteria anymore. Anyhow, dust of the ground may be small particules of fertile ground (disinfected, for this purpose) or small particules of clay...

Soil with no organic matter in it (bacteria, fungi, earthworms, decomposing material, humus) is infertile. Most of the vegetables we eat wouldn't grow in it. The point is that "fertile ground" and "ground containing no organic matter" are mutually exclusive categories.

That's not relevant. Simply replace "serious mutation" by "mutation", it the context remains the same and according to the scientifical conventions.

But then you used the term "serious mutation" again below that, and also "small mutation" in the next paragraph. I know about certain scientific conventions, but none of them have a "serious/nonserious" designation; I want to know what you mean.

...It is relevant if we do not understand what you mean. If you're not sure what you mean, then you need to decide, or to stop using the term.

AstraSequi wrote: Are you saying that the overall morphology of humans has not changed since the time of Aristotle, and that therefore it is impossible for any change to happen at all in any time frame? That's the argument that I think you seem to be using.

Changes of race (color of eyes, purification of race in indians of America...) or small mutations may happen, but since the times of Aristotle, Noah, or Adam, people have 5 fingers per hand and no 6 fingers hand mutation is transmitted from parents to children... I mean, mutations able to trigger a change of specie... no, they didn't happen... to see the lies of the modern intelligent man that existed since "60.000 years ago", please refer to page 19 of this forum... extraordinary mutation events may happen in modern times, like nuclear war, but even so, there's no evidence of change of specie in Hiroshima or Tchernobil...

I don't think you answered the question (it is a "yes" or "no" type question).

AstraSequi wrote:...are you saying that humans have not changed into a new species in 30,000 generations, therefore it is impossible for any change to happen at all in any time frame?

According to darwinism, men changed of specie every 30.000 generations, but mutant microbes contradict that. There's one bacteria that "seemed to change of specie", according to "conventional scientifical criteria", but all other mutant microbes didn't. And they should, because they suffer important mutations, like resistance to antibiotica. Thus, it can not be generalized, and humans have a mutation rate per generation a lot slower than mutant microbes: for men, taking to comparison the microbes, it only would be possible an hipothetical change of specie after, I would say, 100.000 even 300.000 generations = 2.000.000 to 7.000.000 years for only one change of specie! E.g. Homo Neandertal to modern man...and microbes show it: it was a very particular case and not the general case... it contradicts completely generalizations in evolutionism and evolution dates... conclusion: it was the exception and not the rule and with bigger living beings, the mutation rate decreases, which makes its viability practically impossible...

Again, I don't think you answered the question (and again, it is a "yes" or "no" type question).

I think your main argument is something similar to "The world is 6,000 years old, therefore there was not enough time for evolution to happen, therefore evolution did not happen." Is that correct?

AstraSequi wrote:What specific experiment or experiments would convince you? That's what I mean when I ask for standards of evidence.

1) To make evolve in a lab (e.g. a ground completely desinfected of life), spontaneously a simple form of life: it can be even used a completely desinfected lake, with complete absence of life and a lot of electrical storms, to try to create the first form of life... this event should be repeatable in order to give coherence to (continuous) evolutionism...

...Again, you can't "make" something happen "spontaneously." If something happens "spontaneously," then it happened without external cause. The word "make" implies that we are the external cause.

That is, it is not logically possible to meet the requirement. We cannot be the cause of something that happens with no cause.

What I mean is:

1) you start, trigger the experience to restart life, setting the same environment as it happened in the beginning, according to the science. Here there's an external cause: you're trying to reproduce a past event

2) afterwards, you let the things go, spontaneously: I mean, you set a sterile ground or lake exposed to the weather and you don't intervene anymore (but if you're able to observe the results, through a kind of window, it would be nice...)

2b) alternatively, you can try to simulate a permanent electrical storm in a previously sterilised lake, assuming life was created that way (a good experience to do in a lake in Mars, or in an artificial lake in a spaceship, for example). Yes, here it is not spontaneous because you have to simulate the theoretical conditions of the origin of life. But this experience, because of human intervention is too artificial: normally it should be an initially disinfected lake and atmosphere, exposed to the weather, without no more human intervention, just waiting... and observing the results... the problem is that, afterwards, science would come with a excuse that a permanent electrical storm would be required, "as it happened in the beginning"...

2) to make evolve in a lab an australopythecus into a modern man, spontaneously, hasardously: OK, this is impossible to do, "it takes too much time": so, it is completely non proofed and coherency with reality can not be tested...

Even if Australopithecus still existed, I think such an attempt would be unethical..."Cannot be tested" is not equivalent with "false" (or "true," for that matter).

1.That's the point: Darwinism is not an evidence: it is a non proofed theoritical, and the truth, the coherency with reality, per definition, can not be proofed

2. According to Jesus, the hominids are the result of sex between humans and animals (monkeys/gorila's?). An attempt to reproduce again australopithecus, it would be really non ethical... According to wikipedia, genetics proof that there were interbreeding between (at least) the last 2 or 3 most recent families of homo (e.g. neandertal and modern man). That's how "evolution" happened: sex at "mule style"...

AstraSequi wrote:

...dates are completely wrong. Maybe there's a difference of a few days in time, that's all (man was created in the 6th day, and microbes were created a few days before)

I think you need to provide verifiable evidence for this...I don't really see any in the reference that you gave.

Yes, dates are also non proofed. But "the million of years" stories are also far from being an evidence. The reliable time machine is not there to test the truth, the coherency with reality. Logical reasoning, (= logical date procedures) means nothing without the test of coherency with reality, which is impossible to do for dates before the Flood...

Anyhow, I hope that you agree that the story of the modern man, able to do doctorats, since 100.000 to 200.000 years ago (dates source: wikipedia), living permanently in caves, because he refused to do a hut in wood or stone, unable to deplace quickly (e.g. with horses), to hunt or to practice agriculture in Africa, or that refused to reproduce as it should , is really a big tale... Just to compare, population in Algeria increased 8 times in the 20th century, in very difficult economical conditions, war and with a terrible climate

You you have problems, you "disinfect" the fertile ground, and there's no bacteria anymore. Anyhow, dust of the ground may be small particules of fertile ground (disinfected, for this purpose) or small particules of clay...

Soil with no organic matter in it (bacteria, fungi, earthworms, decomposing material, humus) is infertile. Most of the vegetables we eat wouldn't grow in it. The point is that "fertile ground" and "ground containing no organic matter" are mutually exclusive categories.

When I mean disinfected, or sterilized, I mean that all living beings there were previous killed, and not to remove all organic matter. But you have always the alternative to use ground with no death organic matter at all: indeed, may it was so in the beginning, when God created the first form of life...

That's not relevant. Simply replace "serious mutation" by "mutation", it the context remains the same and according to the scientifical conventions.

AstraSequi wrote:But then you used the term "serious mutation" again below that, and also "small mutation" in the next paragraph. I know about certain scientific conventions, but none of them have a "serious/nonserious" designation; I want to know what you mean.

...It is relevant if we do not understand what you mean. If you're not sure what you mean, then you need to decide, or to stop using the term.

You could easily deduce it from my previous quoted text below: serious mutation: able to trigger a change of specie small mutation: the opposite of serious mutation

AstraSequi wrote: Are you saying that the overall morphology of humans has not changed since the time of Aristotle, and that therefore it is impossible for any change to happen at all in any time frame? That's the argument that I think you seem to be using.

Changes of race (color of eyes, purification of race in indians of America...) or small mutations may happen, but since the times of Aristotle, Noah, or Adam, people have 5 fingers per hand and no 6 fingers hand mutation is transmitted from parents to children... I mean, mutations able to trigger a change of specie... no, they didn't happen... to see the lies of the modern intelligent man that existed since "60.000 years ago", please refer to page 19 of this forum... extraordinary mutation events may happen in modern times, like nuclear war, but even so, there's no evidence of change of specie in Hiroshima or Tchernobil...

AstraSequi wrote: I don't think you answered the question (it is a "yes" or "no" type question).

You want a "yes" or "no" answer, but you combine two different questions. All can be deduced from the text above...

question 1 " Are you saying that the overall morphology of humans has not changed since the time of Aristotle?"

Yes, Aristotle, Tutakamhon had 5 fingers and we keeping having 5 fingers per hand and not 6...

question 2. It is impossible for any change to happen at all in any time frame? That's the argument that I think you seem to be using.

No, small mutations (=mutations that don't trigger change of specie) are always possible and are en evidence.

AstraSequi wrote:...are you saying that humans have not changed into a new species in 30,000 generations, therefore it is impossible for any change to happen at all in any time frame?

According to darwinism, men changed of specie every 30.000 generations, but mutant microbes contradict that. There's one bacteria that "seemed to change of specie", according to "conventional scientifical criteria", but all other mutant microbes didn't. And they should, because they suffer important mutations, like resistance to antibiotica. Thus, it can not be generalized, and humans have a mutation rate per generation a lot slower than mutant microbes: for men, taking to comparison the microbes, it only would be possible an hipothetical change of specie after, I would say, 100.000 even 300.000 generations = 2.000.000 to 7.000.000 years for only one change of specie! E.g. Homo Neandertal to modern man...and microbes show it: it was a very particular case and not the general case... it contradicts completely generalizations in evolutionism and evolution dates... conclusion: it was the exception and not the rule and with bigger living beings, the mutation rate decreases, which makes its viability practically impossible...

AstraSequi wrote:Again, I don't think you answered the question (and again, it is a "yes" or "no" type question).

I think your main argument is something similar to "The world is 6,000 years old, therefore there was not enough time for evolution to happen, therefore evolution did not happen." Is that correct?[/quote]

1. Please note that according to Gen 1,1: "in the beginning, God created the earth and heavens", thus the earth and the skies existed before the 6 days of the creation, but not the rest of the universe (galaxies etc.)

2. Even if life existed since "millions of years ago", the experiences with thousands of successive generations are far from proofing continuous evolution (= one specie derived from the other only by mutations, without sexual intercourse with closer species and without "jumps")

3. In Wikipedia, they don't dare to call the E. Coli experiment as a change of specie of this bacteria. Although conventionally it could be "considered as a very important mutation enough to trigger a change of specie, making the E. Coli closer to Salmonella", in practice:

3a. E. Coli was able, after 50.000 generations and hunderd of millions of mutations(but only 100 to 1000 valid for this experience), to survive in citric acid, which she was not able to do before.

3b. but the survival capacities of the bacteria diminished: extinguishion more probable...

3c. this kind of mutation is similar to those of bacterias resistant afterwards to antibiotica, and which per definition, didn't change of specie: once again, the scientifical criterias of change of specie may be quite "ambiguous". Just to give a better idea, people with Aids imunity (able to successfully live in case of Aids contamination, thus, in contact with the Aids virus), may be mutant, but they don't change of specie...

JackBean wrote:christian: you have serious misunderstanding of evolution. First, human does not change every 30 000 generations. Even if it did, that doesn't mean anything about any other species. Every species mutates and changes with other speed.

We're here to argue. Closer species to modern man,according to wikipedia,- Homo Neandertal existed, since 600.000 years ago. Making 25 years the generation time, it appeared about 600.000/25= 24 000 generations ago- Homo Heidelberg existed since 300.000 years ago= 12.000 generations ago- Modern very intelligent man since 100.000 to 200.000 years ago (and of course, he loved the caves for 95% of that period, with the spiders, the humidity, the bats and the rats... ), which gives 4.000 to 8.000 generations ago

Which means, the closer ancestors of (and including )modern man had very strong positive mutation capacity, I mean, able to trigger change of species, a lot bigger than E. Coli, which requires 30.000 generations to become "antibiotica-resistant like". It seems to me that mutant microbes have stronger positive mutation capacity than the modern man ancestors... Or do you think, the man/hominids family have stronger mutation capacities? Do you have evidences? Because since the times of Noah/Adam we keep having 5 fingers and not 6... I would like to have wings also, but we don't evolve enough (spontaneously) since the last thousands of years (=with written registers).

Note: people suffer a lot of mutations indeed, but they're almost exclusively negative: cancers etc.

JackBean wrote: Consider some "living fossils", which didn't change for millions of years, while other species change very often.

1. I completely disagree with the "million of years" story/tale. Detailed discussion in pages 19 and 20 of the forum. It is rather non proofed subject.

Yes, thank you. Now - if such an experiment was repeated in a laboratory, what would you think had been demonstrated?

Or suppose some different criterion were met instead:- if the experiment showed that a self-replicating but non-cellular entity had been produced?- if the experiment showed that all the components found in living organisms could be produced spontaneously?- if the experiment was run, and it was clear that it would work if it were done enough times, but it would take lots of repetitions (costing enough money to be infeasible to actually carry out)?

Alternatively: what other kinds of evidence would convince you that evolution occurs?

That's the point: Darwinism is not an evidence: it is a non proofed theoritical, and the truth, the coherency with reality, per definition, can not be proofed

What is "coherency with reality"?

And again, "cannot be tested" (even if that were the case) is not equivalent with either "true" or "false."

AstraSequi wrote:But "the million of years" stories are also far from being an evidence. The reliable time machine is not there to test the truth, the coherency with reality. Logical reasoning, (= logical date procedures) means nothing without the test of coherency with reality, which is impossible to do for dates before the Flood...

Then what evidence would convince you of the age of the earth? You and I both know that time machines are not available, if they are even possible.

I think you may want to talk to the physicists and geologists.

You could easily deduce it from my previous quoted text below: serious mutation: able to trigger a change of specie small mutation: the opposite of serious mutation

Thank you. So why are you not using the term "change of species"?

The next question is, what would you consider to be a change of species? Please make sure that it applies to both microbes and to larger organisms (and you can supply a different definition for each if you choose).

AstraSequi wrote: Are you saying that the overall morphology of humans has not changed since the time of Aristotle, and that therefore it is impossible for any change to happen at all in any time frame? That's the argument that I think you seem to be using.

...You want a "yes" or "no" answer, but you combine two different questions. All can be deduced from the text above...

question 1 " Are you saying that the overall morphology of humans has not changed since the time of Aristotle?"

Yes, Aristotle, Tutakamhon had 5 fingers and we keeping having 5 fingers per hand and not 6...

question 2. It is impossible for any change to happen at all in any time frame? That's the argument that I think you seem to be using.

No, small mutations (=mutations that don't trigger change of specie) are always possible and are en evidence.

Note: question 1 doesn't imply question 2.

...It is a single question, asking whether you are making a particular "if...then" statement. I now understand what you mean by "serious mutation" - so you can replace "any change" with "any change of species."

I agree that the conclusion (which you called the "second question") is not implied by the premise. However, you then need to provide different support for your conclusion.

AstraSequi wrote:...are you saying that humans have not changed into a new species in 30,000 generations, therefore it is impossible for any change [of species] to happen at all in any time frame?

I still don't think you addressed this question. It's possible that this is being caused by a language difference across English and French - again, it is a question about whether you are making a particular inference. I'm fairly sure the answer is no, but then I don't know what argument you are using to try and demonstrate the conclusion.

Or if you want, only answer the main question:

AstraSequi wrote:I think your main argument is something similar to "The world [alternatively, life] is 6,000 years old, therefore there was not enough time for evolution to happen, therefore evolution did not happen." Is that correct?

You are operating under some argument that concludes with "therefore, evolution did not happen" (or "therefore, species cannot change into another" or something similar). I don't really understand what that argument is - at least, I can't seem to find anything of the form "X is true, Y is true, therefore Z is true."

Your main premise, at last in your last few posts, seems to be "humans have not recently changed into another species" (and possibly, "microbes may have changed into another species in one case"). I don't think it's possible to get from this to "species cannot change into another." Am I wrong, or are there premises that I'm missing?

christianstrategies wrote:Yes, in French: the original, also in French, shall be found somewhere in the web site , the Web site of private messages of Jesus and Mary, including also explanations that touch scientifical domains (evolutionism, hominids, dates etc.). It shall be in the topic "nature et création". I think I should also give a look there in order to increase my knowledge in this domain...

I'm sure, you will find something in English, if Jesus said that, right? (best with direct link to the page) Or better, verse from Bible, because if Jesus said that, it has to be in Bible, has it not?